Update redirect/rewrite rules

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds critical behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide: 'This deletes all existing redirect/rewrite rules for the service that aren't included in the request.' It also discloses rule priority based on list order. These details are not present in the annotations (destructiveHint only indicates destructiveness, not the extent), making the description highly transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the operation, warning about deletion, and explaining priority ordering. It is front-loaded with the core action, then critical warnings, and ends with the API endpoint. No unnecessary words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is complete for this tool's complexity: it clarifies the full-replacement semantics, destructive implications, ordering behavior, and the underlying API call. There is no output schema, and return values are not critical for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. Combined with rich schema and annotations, the description covers all essential aspects.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, providing full parameter definitions. The description adds value by explaining that list order determines rule priority, which is not apparent from the schema alone. It also explains the body is the list of rules to use as the replacement, tying the parameters to the tool's behavior.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool as a full replacement operation for redirect/rewrite rules on a service, using the specific verb 'Replace all'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like render_add_route, render_patch_route, and render_delete_route by emphasizing the wholesale replacement semantics.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly states the tool replaces all existing rules with the provided list, implying it should be used when a full overwrite is desired. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., add_route for single additions) or provide 'when not to use' guidance, though the destructive warning effectively communicates the risk and usage boundary.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.